Topic awaiting preservation: Pope Denounces 'Imbalance' of Wealth ... (Page 5 of 5)

I don't wish to derail whichever topic we're on at the moment, but this needs addressing -

quote:

---

Atheism is the lack of theism. That's the only valid definition of atheism.

---

But,

quote:

---

The noun "atheism" has 2 senses in WordNet.

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

---

Now, the word 'doctrine' becomes very important -

quote:

---

The noun "doctrine" has 1 sense in WordNet.

1. doctrine, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism -- (a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school)

---

While I have always been a proponent of the fact that atheism is absolutely the very simple non-belief in God or gods, and has nohting to do with any doctrine, the very source you use to define your 'objective terms' says otherwise.

Now, I only bring this up to help illustrate that even such a basic word as atheism carries more than the simple meaning it was intended to have, even from a source such as Princeton's WordNet.

As I mentioned, atheism most certainly has nothing to do with any particular doctirne, and is in and of itself he lack of belief in any gods. Unfortunately many doctrines do all too often becoms associated with atheism,

It is definately important to be specific when using strong terms that you feel have only one valid definition - especially when your recommended source of definition has contradictory information.

Initially, I disagreed with the term "doctrine" in the definition of "atheism," which means I also disagreed with many dictionaries, particularly American Heritage as it is the worst of them all; however, using WordNet to further define terms one can conclude, despite the esoteric definition of belief, that doctrine/belief is accurate within the definition of "atheism." The first sense is strong atheism whereas the second, suggested by me, is weak atheism, or general atheism. The first sense is also a common religionistic view of atheism as well as an accurate definition of strong atheism in atheistic organizations like the American Atheists, Secular Humanism, Brianism, etc.

doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

belief: any cognitive content held as true

system: a complex of methods or rules governing behavior

"Theism" is also defined as "the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods."

I've contributed much to the Wikipedia article on atheism. Have fun. ;p

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

The first sense is strong atheism whereas the second, suggested by me, is weak atheism, or general atheism. The first sense is also a common religionistic view of atheism as well as an accurate definition of strong atheism in atheistic organizations like the American Atheists, Secular Humanism, Brianism, etc.

---

As long as you realize that what you are saying is a very subjective method of reasoning things, I'm ok with that

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As long as you realize that what you are saying is a very subjective method of reasoning things, I'm ok with that

---

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Naive misperceptions do not make for reasonable redefinitions. You probably don't understand if you think the definition of "atheism" is biased.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-22-2004 00:53)

I understand perfectly well.

You seem to have quite a flaw in your reasoning though...

Would you explain or do you prefer ambiguity?

You seem to have a major problem with clarity, word usage, and logic.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

metahuman said:

You seem to have a major problem with clarity, word usage, and logic.

---

See why that doesn't mean anything? There's no context, which is precisely why the following doesn't mean anything either.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As long as you realize that what you are saying is a very subjective method of reasoning things, I'm ok with that

---

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I understand perfectly well.

You seem to have quite a flaw in your reasoning though...

---

Unless you provide context--evidence to support your claims--then my best option is to ignore your remarks henceforth.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-22-2004 10:02)

I don't have time for a full explanation/discussion of this at the moment. My first post on the subject said all that needed to be said really -

1) you off, in your sig, a place to find the meaning of the words that you use.

2) you offer what you call the only valid definition of a word.

3) your own source of definitions contradicts what you say.

4) you then try to reason around the issue in a rather subjective way, still trying to claim objectivity.

It is very flawed.

You're still not providing context. Your claims remain meaningless.

1) Princeton University's WordNet 2.0

2) It is the only valid definition of "atheism."

3) No, there exists no contradiction. There are two senses: one for strong atheism, the other for general atheism. Provision of multiple senses is the way lexical reference systems work.

4) Definition of terms is not "subjective.".

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-22-2004 15:22)

Meta, you say

quote:

---

You're still not providing context. Your claims remain meaningless.

---

However,

quote:

---

Bugimus: Atheism is the lack of theism. That's the only valid definition of atheism. There's nothing more to it than that. Sure, there are categories like "weak atheism/agnostic atheism" and "strong atheism" but atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods for whatever reason.

---

quote:

---

There are two types of atheism which are often confused by atheists and religionists.

* Atheism, sometimes called 'weak atheism' or 'agnostic atheism', is the lack of belief in gods for whatever reason.

* Positive atheism, also called 'strong atheism', is the belief in the lack of gods.

See the difference? Lack of belief in gods is not equivalent to belief in the non-existence of gods. Compare these statements:

* Agnostic atheist: "I do not believe in gods nor do I believe they do not exist; however, I am open to the possibility of both the existence and nonexistence of gods."

* Strong atheist: "Gods do not exist! I have proof."

The weak atheist reserves judgment while the strong atheist declares war on theism.

---

quote:

---

I agree that key terms must be defined prior to discussion in order for discussion to be meaningful. The problem with the idea that the definition of "atheism" isn't static is that it is static. The alternate and invalid definitions of "atheism" (and of all terms) are either ignorantly developed and/or developed with intent to misguide.

---

quote:

---

3. The literal definition of "atheism" has remained the same since the term was coined. The Greek prefix a- means without and the Greek-derived theism means belief in gods. While languages as systems of communication do evolve, basic words in every language do not. Maintaining a system of standardized language for the production of efficient communication is not a matter of black-and-whiteness or inflexibility. Naive misperceptions do not make for reasonable redefinitions. Godlessness is not equivalent to immorality for an atheist lacks theism and therefore lacks your belief in what your god (or gods) represents.

---

And therefore

quote:

---

I don't wish to derail whichever topic we're on at the moment, but this needs addressing -

quote:Atheism is the lack of theism. That's the only valid definition of atheism.



But,

quote:The noun "atheism" has 2 senses in WordNet.

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

---

I'm afraid he caught you with your pants down Meta. Time to admit you made a mistake. If you can. DL's claims are not only not meaningless, but easy to understand, whereas your logic train breaks down, and is not.

Of course, you are probably the only one who will not see this...

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-22-2004 16:01)

i need to get coffee and then sit down and reread all this again to see who meant what

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

What context am I failing to provide?

The context is here, now, your words.

There are two senses of the word atheism listed at Wordnet.

You use the subjective system of assigning your idea of values to 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' in an effort to qualify your statement that there is only one valid definition of the word.

There's nothing wrong with that, of course.

But if you can't even admit that you are being subjective in your explanation of the variations of atheism, and that the 'sense' of atheism defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" opens up the door for a whole host of subjective interpretations (and, of course, despite your hardest efforts to see it otherwise definitions of terms *is* all about interpretation - that's how language works. Words only mean what they mean because we use them that way), then you probably just don't understand.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-22-2004 18:01)

Sad.

You two seem to lack the brainpower required for comprehension of this subject.

There are two senses of "atheism"

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

"Senses" regard the common usage of a term. In this case, there are two common usages of "atheism" which refer to two different, yet similar, categories of atheism.

The first sense is a specific definition. It is applicable to both strong atheism and organizational atheism.

The second sense is a general definition. It is applicable to both strong atheism, weak atheism, and even anatheism.

The applicability of which sense to a particular context is important for understanding what is meant in which context. When a Christian argues against the fact that humans are not born as atheists, their interpretation (their sense) of the term is most likely, and incorrectly, the first sense. The reason why their interpretation is incorrect is because they use an inappropriate sense to form an argument. When atheists maintain that humans are born without theism and are therefore atheists, they are using the general definition. We understand that general atheism--the LACK of theistic beliefs--is a passive condition whereas strong atheism is an active disbelief.

DL-44: You said, "Words only mean what they mean because we use them that way." That is a half-truth for it ignores context. CONTEXT. COONNNNNNTEXXXT. Words (symbols) are assigned a meaning when coined and used with that meaning henceforth. In the case of "atheism," the etymology regards "atheism" as "the lack of theistic beliefs."

quote:

---

The term atheism (French athéisme, from athée, meaning atheist, from Greek 'Αθεος, atheos, meaning godless : a-, without; + Θεός, theos, meaning god; it has Indo-European Roots) is formed of the Greek prefix α- (a-), meaning "without" or "not," and the Greek-derived theism (from Θεϊσμός, theismos), meaning a belief in a god. The literal meaning of the term is therefore "lack of belief in a god."

---

The word "atheism" has been used polemically to describe the position of someone who does not believe in one particular deity, even if they do believe in another. An example would be its use as an accusation of the pagan Romans against the early Christians, and vice versa. It was also used against Socrates. Polemical usages of this term are a pejorative sense, which are not covered by the WordNet's lexical reference system.

If you still do not understand, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Having extensively researched atheism for the past ten years, I am not wrong about this subject. Get over it and admit defeat.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-22-2004 23:00)

quote:

---

Get over it and admit defeat.

---

youobviously enjoy this mental masturbation far more than any meaningful dialogue...so once again - please feel free to continue without me.

If the day ever comes when you get over yourself, let us know.

Should you happen to be at all interested, you'll notice that I never anywhere said you were wrong about the word atheism. I understand very well what an atheist is, and I understand its etymology very well (without your input).

What I said was that, despite your assertions that you are always so logical and objective, and use your 'objectively defined terms', you use a very subjective loop of reasoning to come to your conclusions.

If you can't deal with that fact, that's your problem.

And as DL so eloquently pointed out, no-one was saying you, meta were wrong about the word atheism. You apparently still do not understand. You type up a lot of stuff to support something that no-one is disagreeing with.

And I think DL put it very well, indeed, a few times.

quote:

---

despite your assertions that you are always so logical and objective, and use your 'objectively defined terms', you use a very subjective loop of reasoning to come to your conclusions.

---

I mentioned it

quote:

---

DL's claims are not only not meaningless, but easy to understand, whereas your logic train breaks down, and is not.

---

quote:

---

Of course, you are probably the only one who will not see this...

---

Sad.

I shall graciously bow out, at this point as well. Unless Bugs wishes to go a bit deeper into the subject at hand, that is.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

[insert a slew of meaningless taunts]

What I said was that, despite your assertions that you are always so logical and objective, and use your 'objectively defined terms', you use a very subjective loop of reasoning to come to your conclusions.

---

Then what exactly is "subjective" about the so-called "loop of reasoning" (which isn't a loop at all and in fact is the mere defining of words in a statement)? If you can't define it, WebShaman's and your accusation is meaningless being based on nothing but subjectivity. As we say on Wikipedia, that's your point-of-view.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And I think DL put it very well, indeed, a few times.

---

Fools think alike.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-23-2004 02:35)

Meta, next time, just use the edit button...it is that little thing up there, next to the posted date, in case you don't know. I mean...your posts are only seperated by...what 2 minutes at the most? Directly after one another?

And you still don't get it...

Amazing.

My connection to OzoneAsylum.com is too slow for me to care about editing. I only edit when I notice I posted a poor phrasing of some statement.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And you still don't get it...

---

Right. I don't understand because neither of you have explained. You conceal your claims in ambiguous terms and somehow expect another to interpret you correctly. You leave me guessing. I'm not going to play your game anymore. If you're not going to provide an explanation to support your accusations then you leave me no choice but to ignore both of you henceforth.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-23-2004 04:15)

quote:

---

You conceal your claims in ambiguous terms and somehow expect another to interpret you correctly. You leave me guessing. I'm not going to play your game anymore. If you're not going to provide an explanation to support your accusations then you leave me no choice but to ignore both of you henceforth.

---

Consider the feeling mutual.

If your feeling of supremacy is too important to you to acknowldedge when you have erred, then so be it.

But I have no interest in playing that kind of game....so I certainly feel no offense or loss by your declining to continue.

out of context

"that kind of game....so I certainly feel"

quote:

---

ART, n.
This word has no definition. Its origin is related as follows by the ingenious Father Gassalasca Jape, S.J.

One day a wag -- what would the wretch be at? --
Shifted a letter of the cipher RAT,
And said it was a god's name! Straight arose
Fantastic priests and postulants (with shows,
And mysteries, and mummeries, and hymns,
And disputations dire that lamed their limbs)
To serve his temple and maintain the fires,
Expound the law, manipulate the wires.
Amazed, the populace that rites attend,
Believe whate'er they cannot comprehend,
And, inly edified to learn that two
Half-hairs joined so and so (as Art can do)
Have sweeter values and a grace more fit
Than Nature's hairs that never have been split,
Bring cates and wines for sacrificial feasts,
And sell their garments to support the priests.

The Devil"s Dictionary

---